Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

For those who want to continue to argue off topic with me, (I'm sorry for dragging this topic off track K1ngSp4de,) When somebody mentioned to the masses here that GMO's had no negative health effects... well i can't let that slide, & Monsanto makes GMO's, the very same engineered gluten peptides that are under scrutiny and intense study now, Monsanto has no clinical or pre clinical health determinations for human consumption of their GMO's either, as it clearly states on their website, they feel there is no need even though There is a growing body of scientific evidence which proves that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are inherently different from natural organisms, including the way the body processes them, as well as how the immune system responds to them. But Monsanto, the largest purveyor of GMOs in the world, believes that GMOs are no different than natural organisms, and that GMO testing is both needless and valueless.

In the Why aren't you running human clinical trials on GM crops? section of Monsanto's Food Safety page, the biotechnology giant explains its opinion that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to natural organisms. According to Monsanto, since concentrations of proteins, carbohydrates, and other nutrient factors vary among natural crops, as well as among natural and GM crops, then these differences are automatically unimportant in light of GMO safety.

Furthermore, Monsanto claims that its injection of foreign DNA into its GM crops is also automatically safe because, get this, DNA is present in natural crops as well. Never mind that the injected DNA is foreign and unnatural, and is used to alter the entire genetic structure of GM crops -- according to Monsanto, its unnatural DNA is automatically non-toxic because every other plant also has DNA. Case closed.

Using this same absurd illogic, injecting foreign animal DNA into a developing human baby, for instance, must also be safe because that baby contains DNA, right? Or how about drinking antifreeze, which is made of atoms, because your body is also made of atoms? Based on Monsanto's pseudoscientific nonsense, everything can be considered non-toxic and safe because it is all made of atoms, just like our bodies...

Wow....kind of contradictory from what these scientists have been saying for 12 years...

Quote:sonamdrukpa said:

Quote:DrugzRBad said:

Quote:HerbBaker said:I agree that genetic engineering isn't intrinsically bad. But there is absolutely no oversight in the united states.

And that is very dangerous.

It seems like whenever there is a shred of evidence on either side someone takes it and runs with. Nothing is ever as simple as black and white. Unless your extremely bias.

Technically even standard breeding practices can be considered GMO.But, what we are talking about is invasion of the cell wall.

That's genetic engineering.

Now this we can both agree on.

(From the Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology)

Fate of food DNA

Evaluation of the safety of genetically modified (GM) crops seems to be hampered by the unwillingness of regulators recognize and to evaluate the impact of genetic effects that are outside simplistic models of genes and their behavior. It has been presumed that the organism destroys food genes during digestion and excretion. However, studies on DNA immunization showed that DNA could be delivered to the immune system through oral uptake. A few daring German researchers have also explored the fate of orally ingested genetic material. The papers below show that ingested DNA is not only circulated through the animal body but may be associated with nucleus and chromosomes.

The first paper "The fate of forage DNA in farm animals" by Einspanier et al (2001), studies ingestion of maize DNA and of GM maize DNA, while the second is an earlier study "On the fate of foreign DNA in mice" by Shubbert et al (1998) that showed that ingested DNA from a bacterial virus or from a plasmid transgene is incorporated in chromosomes and is passed from mother to fetus. The authors of the study ask "is maternally ingested foreign DNA a potential mutagen for developing fetus?" If food DNA sequences are randomly incorporated into coding sequences including introns, exons or promoters they will certainly act as mutagens.

These two studies show that food DNA is circulated to the tissues of animals and may even be transmitted from the mother to the fetal tissues. Studies of the type described above should be repeated and extended. Mainly, however, the studies should stand out as a clear warning to regulators that they cannot ignore a major paradigm shift in the way that DNA and genes evaluated.

In one of the two studies transgenic DNA from a plasmid is clearly circulated to tissues while in the other transgenic DNA was not detected in tissues. However, the latter study involved a lower relative input of the transgene and should be repeated with higher resolution of the transgene and using high relative input of the transgene say by feeding concentrated Bt plasmid. Experiments of that type can be undertaken using human volunteers as well as farm and experimental animals.

The available evidence is sufficient to support a moratorium on the massive intake of GM crops by human populations until the genetic consequences are resolved in the laboratory. It is not sane to suggest that the huge populations fed unlabeled GM crops are a sufficient test of the safety of the genetic constructions. No method is available to readily quantify the intake and exposure of humans to unlabeled GM foods.

The impact of bacterial DNA on the immune system (the CpG effect)

Essentially all of the GM crops marketed or being field tested presently contain bacterial sequences as a part of the plasmids used for delivering genes and many of the primary crop protection genes are of bacterial origin. Such genes include Bt and most herbicide tolerance genes.

DNA vaccines have generated a huge literature and clinical applications showing the activity and cellular incorporation of DNA administered by oral, inhalation, injection, vaginal or dermal application (Molling 1997,Donnoley et al 1997 and Gurunathan et al 2000). Ingestion of bacteria does not appear to be an effective means of delivering DNA because the bacterial cell walls effectively contain the nucleic acid (for example, in yogurt the milk products are digested but the bacteria of the culture are passed intact). Lysis genes have been found necessary and effective in triggering release of DNA for mucosal vaccine delivery (Jani and Mekalanos 200). In contrast , the crops eaten by animals release oligonucleotides and DNA peptide complexes during digestion and such molecules circulate to a significant degree.

The bacterial genes used in constructing GM crops have a property that impacts on the immune system over and above the ability to produce antibodies. Eukaryote DNA has relatively low frequencies of the dinuleotide motif CpG and that motif is methylated and plays a role in gene regulation while bacteria and their viruses have a high frequency of the CpG motif that is usually unmethylated. Apparently the CpG motif in DNA molecules and oligonucleotides provides a signal that the immune system recognizes and initiates a primary sequence of reactions leading to activation of the immune system leading to inflammation (Manders and Thomas 2000 and Gurunathan et al 2000). Gung et al (1999) found that bacterial DNA CpG caused septic arthritis. Hemmi et al (2000) found that there is a receptor protein that recognizes bacterial DNA. Oligonucleotides rich in the CpG motif are used to enhance immunization. Inflammation is an essential part of the immune response but it adversely affects existing conditions such as autoimmune disease. Furthermore, it has been found that CpG oligonucleotides rescue B cell lymphoma cells from anti-IgM mediated growth inhibition (Han et al 1999). The oligonucleotide acts as a promoter of lymphoma.

Finally, Gorecki and Simons (1999) pointed out a danger to the fetus in DNA vaccination of the mother. That danger was the creation of tolerance in the fetus leading to individuals more susceptible to infection and/or they may become carriers. The introduction of genes with bacterial CpG motif to the fetus is likely to have untoward consequences.

In conclusion, the bacterial genes used in GM crops have been found to have significant impacts on the individuals ingesting GM crops. The impacts include inflammation, arthritis and lymphoma promotion. The consequence of GM food genes being incorporated into the chromosomes of somatic cells of those consuming GM food and their unborn has been ignored by those charged with evaluating the hazards of GM crops.

Monsanto does not actually care about science, though, and has actually made it a point to just arbitrarily deny the need for actual GMO testing in humans to prove its claims. In concluding its unsubstantiated diatribe about why human testing of GMOs is unnecessary, the agri-giant says there is simply "no need, or value" in testing the safety of GMOs -- in other words, if Monsanto says they are safe, then they are safe!

The fact that anyone considers this blind, self-serving declaration to be scientifically sound is frightening in and of itself, let alone the fact that the US government openly approves of such nonsense and has used it to form food policy. To put it more simply, GMOs have never been properly safety tested in humans because Monsanto does not feel it is necessary, and most of those in control of food policy are perfectly content with this.

More studies...

This abstract in US National Academy of Sciences Journal cited below demonstrates that biotech's efforts to use 'Agrobacterium' to insert genes into GE crop plants might have negative health effects on those ingesting the engineered plants. Note: 'tumefaciens' means tumor inducing.

MicrobiologyGenetic Transformation Of Hela Cells By Agrobacterium

Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.041327598

Edited by Eugene W. Nester, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and approved December 8, 2000 (received for review July 13, 2000)

Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a soil phytopathogen that elicits neoplastic growths [ie. cancer] on the host plant species. In nature, however, Agrobacterium also may encounter organisms belonging to other kingdoms such as insects and animals that feed on the infected plants. Can Agrobacterium, then, also infect animal cells? Here, we report that Agrobacterium attaches to and genetically transforms several types of human cells. In stably transformed HeLa cells, the integration event occurred at the right border of the tumor-inducing plasmid's transferred-DNA (T-DNA), suggesting bona fide T-DNA transfer and lending support to the notion that Agrobacterium transforms human cells by a mechanism similar to that which it uses for transformation of plants cells. Collectively, our results suggest that Agrobacterium can transport its T-DNA to human cells and integrate it into their genome.

UK's Food Standards Agency dismissed its new research findings that GM DNA in food has transferred to bacteria in the human gut. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reveals how the experiment was designed to bias against positive findings, so the actual transfer of GM DNA could be much more extensive. There should now be a comprehensive ban on all GM crops, she says.

That GM DNA should transfer to bacteria in the human gut is not at all unexpected. We already know that DNA persists in the gut, and that bacteria can readily take up foreign DNA. Why did our regulators wait so long to do the experiment? And an experiment that's designed against making positive findings?

The research in question is the final part of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) project on evaluating the risks of GMOs in human foods, commissioned by the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF).

A single meal containing GM soya was fed to human subjects. It consisted of commercial soya meal - 150g El Corte Ingles, batch number and GM content unspecified - mixed in the burgers and soya protein supplement – 100g Holland and Barrett, batch number and GM content again unspecified -mixed in 'milk' shakes. No data were presented on how much DNA was present in the commercial samples, and whether the DNA was broken down and to what degree. Needless to say, the GM DNA inserts were not characterised at all.

The method of detecting GM DNA is highly flawed. It depends on amplifying a small part – 180bp - of the entire GM DNA insert that was at least ten or twenty times as long. So, any other fragment of the insert would not be detected, nor would a fragment that did not overlap the whole 180bp amplified, or that had been rearranged. The chance of getting a positive result is 5% at best, and likely to be much, much less. Thus, a negative finding with this detection method most probably does not indicate the absence of GM DNA.

More revealing still, the researchers checked for GM DNA only in the gut contents, but failed to check if the DNA has passed through the gut into the blood stream and blood cells. This omission is inexcusable, as a series of experiments in mice dating back to 1997 had already documented that GM DNA can pass through the gut wall into the bloodstream, to be taken up by cells in the blood, liver and spleen. When fed to pregnant mice, the GM DNA also passed through the placenta to be taken up by the cells of the foetus and the newborn.

In the first trial, the GM meal was fed to seven subjects that had part of their lower bowel removed from a previous operation and wearing a colostomy bag. The digested food from the colostomy bag was analysed, and GM DNA was detected in all seven subjects. As much as 3.7% of the GM DNA was recovered in one subject. Bearing in mind the limitation of the method used for detecting GM DNA, all the values are probably gross underestimates.

In the second trial, the meal was fed to 12 human volunteers with intact bowels. No GM DNA was detected in the faeces, which the researchers claimed, indicated that the nucleic acid did not survive passage through the complete intestine. But this claim is most likely to be false, due to the limitation of the GM DNA detection method.

Microbes in the digested food that had passed through the small intestine were cultured through 6 passages in broth containing glyphosate. Bacteria grew to a density of 108/ml in each sub-culturing. In each sub-culture derived from samples taken from 3 subjects at 180, 240 and 300 min after eating, the transgene was found. This is yet another gross underestimate. The method depends on the bacteria having taken up an intact gene coding for glyphosate tolerance, and would not have detected bacteria that have taken up fragments of that gene, or other parts of the GM DNA containing other genes or gene fragments.

Although GM DNA was not detected in samples taken from these 3 subjects prior to GM soya consumption, when the microbes in this material were cultured in broth containing glyphosate, the transgene was detected in a sample collected before the GM meal, though at very low concentrations. This suggests that the subject may already have GM DNA in the gut prior to the experiment, possibly from consuming GM soya. The bacteria harbouring the transgene could not be isolated, so the researchers concluded that, "although present, the bacterium represented a very small proportion of the indigenous intestinal microflora". But as bacteria are capable of multiplying, even rare gene transfer events cannot be ignored.

The researchers were disingenuous when they expressed surprise at the relatively large proportion of GM soya DNA that has survived passage through the small bowel. But in earlier research already published, the same group had found that DNA in food or mixed up with food was much slower to degrade than naked DNA.

Despite the severe limitations placed on detecting GM DNA, and an experimental design both biased towards negative results, irrefutable positive evidence was nevertheless obtained. That means the transfer of GM DNA in the human gut could be much more extensive than the data indicate. This makes it all the more astonishing for the FSA to have reportedly claimed that "the findings had been assessed by several Government experts who had ruled that humans were not at risk". Those experts should now be named and made to defend their ruling.

In a statement on its website, the FSA said that the study had concluded it is "extremely unlikely" that GM genes can end up in the gut of people who eat them. This statement is highly misleading and very likely to be false.

Our government's scientific advisers have been guilty of persistent denial in the face of mounting evidence that horizontal gene transfer can happen and has happened. They are guilty of bad scientific research that misleads the public, of downplaying positive evidence, and of taking the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

I first pointed out the dangers of horizontal gene transfer to MAFF in a series of correspondence in 1996. Their scientific advisers said there was no evidence it could happen. When it became clear that horizontal transfer of GM DNA from GM plants to bacteria can readily happen in the laboratory, the scientific advisors said "just because it happens in the laboratory does not mean it will happen in the field". When positive findings turned up in the only field monitoring experiment in the world that has ever been performed, the scientific advisors dismissed that too, and explained it away by a 'cautious' interpretation of the evidence.

This latest finding is the last piece of damning evidence that horizontal transfer of GM DNA can indeed happen, has already been happening, and cannot be controlled if GM crops continue to be released to the environment. GM DNA, as opposed to natural DNA, is in many respects optimised for horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer of GM DNA can create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, spread drug and antibiotic resistance among pathogens, and trigger cancer by jumping into genomes of mammalian cells. New 'pharm' crops are being developed that poison our water and soil, affecting all organisms in our food web. The ecological impacts are unthinkable. What more do we need for an immediate comprehensive ban on GM crops?

still waiting on you to respond to all this. Try reading first before commenting sonmadrukpa.

--------------------Icelander said: I'd like to fund unlimited abortions. Finally some good coming from my tax dollars.

Repetoire89 said: I love abortion and fully condone it - some should make it into a sport.

Treesniper119 said: Any one who is willing to start life & also willing to deny life to their form/seed/child/offspring is cursed.
For you have severed your own cord to lifes worth.
Anyone who condones these actions is cursed as well...

Quote:treesniper119 said:Never mind that the injected DNA is foreign and unnatural, and is used to alter the entire genetic structure of GM crops -- according to Monsanto, its unnatural DNA is automatically non-toxic because every other plant also has DNA. Case closed.

How is it unnatural? Everything on the planet is natural...everything altered by a part of nature is natural...we are a part of nature..everything we do is natural.

And how is natural related to healthy? Asbestos is natural...should I snort it?

What is 'natural' is merely defined in an adhoc way to support a preexisting belief. Its an appeal to the notion of a god that has constructed a way things 'should be' rather than evolution by selection which constructs things to be exactly as they are.

Quote:HerbBaker said:Well thank you for clarifying tree. I think it's important that people see your good side.

'The Future of Food' is another great documentary for anyone with eyes and ears that want to listen.

If someone wants to insult you tree, let that be their problem, you don't need to stoop to their level. It doesn't help anything and only creates more drama.I've been there man, it's not worth the headache.

There are a lot of immature attitudes on this web site, that's just the way it is. Fighting fire with fire sometimes just gets you burned. Stick with your logic my friend.

I've already seen it. A good one just got posted on Netflix called "Fresh".

Quote:Enlil said: How is it unnatural? Everything on the planet is natural...everything altered by a part of nature is natural...we are a part of nature..everything we do is natural. And how is natural related to healthy? Asbestos is natural...should I snort it?

Quote:DieCommie said:What is 'natural' is merely defined in an adhoc way to support a preexisting belief. Its an appeal to the notion of a god that has constructed a way things 'should be' rather than evolution by selection which constructs things to be exactly as they are.

You see, these unnatural "engineered gluten peptides" do not exist naturally, in nature, in the same form that they are derived from. "Engineered gluten peptides" are derived from natural gluten sources, then man modified & specifically engineered, spliced, (horizontal gene transfer etc.) by Monsanto, with a specific outcome in mind (tolerant to pesticides, drought, faster harvesting) And in light of new studies and evidence, the consequences to the consumer, ecosystem, and world at large, through the creation of previously untested specific GMs by Monsanto, are proving to be a very grave situation.In nature, no such problem or instance that we have been discussing exists & the natural crossings of plants and fruits can not and will not ever become what has been created by Monsanto.

To decide something should not be allowed just because it is unnatural, or 'shows up in animal populations or humans...blah blah blah....isn't enough to ban it. Scientific evidence and research studies should clearly identify the actual damage things cause not just that 'It's not natural = translation = I don't like it or 'might' cause problems in someones opinion.

That's the same kind of specious reasoning that keeps marijuana banned--inspite of studies that show it benign.

-------------------- :smirk
IF THE NEIGHBORS COMPLAIN BECAUSE THE MUSIC'S TOO LOUD, TURN IT UP SO YOU CAN'T HEAR THEM BITCH

How have you managed to hold the thread on such an irrelevant single point for so long?

Cause people like you sonmadrukpa keep coming back to post, its an interesting and very real problem, and worth discussing. (3 reasons for you)

So... your either implying man engineered malaria or that malaria is becoming super resistant to engineered man made drugs? Either or proves nothing on your part, and is not really relevant to the topic. (any one ever heard of Rhino virus? Its not a new topic)

Starfire_xes said:{To decide something should not be allowed just because it is unnatural, or 'shows up in animal populations or humans...blah blah blah....isn't enough to ban it. Scientific evidence and research studies should clearly identify the actual damage things cause not just that 'It's not natural = translation = I don't like it or 'might' cause problems in someones opinion.That's the same kind of specious reasoning that keeps marijuana banned--inspite of studies that show it benign.}

This isn't a case of some natural wheat, corn, soy strains hybridizing. And it is not specious reasoning...Monsanto Drug Company engineered these gluten peptides which are now found to be harmful to everyone and they are not digestible or processable in the body, they basically forced these gluten peptides into 90% of the food we eat, with no testing on humans, (just check their website, they don't think its necessary, and this is the issue) & their are a multitude of scientific studies available now, i have posted a plethora of them in the last 8 pages of discussion, Studies all showing adverse reactions in the "human body" when digesting these "new modified foods". It doesn't matter who you are, human genetics will be altered eventually, & most importantly, Using this same absurd illogic, injecting foreign animal DNA into a developing human baby, for instance, must also be safe because that baby contains DNA, right? Or how about drinking antifreeze, which is made of atoms, because your body is also made of atoms? Based on Monsanto's pseudoscientific nonsense, everything can be considered non-toxic and safe because it is all made of atoms, just like our bodies!

Didn't you read anything starfire? or did you just jump right into your opinions?

Cannabis is illegal because it is pretty much a cure all from nearly every type of cancer to nearly every auto-immune disease. Its cheap and affordable and difficult to tax, it needs no processing or manufacturing, it is readily available medicine to all. Its also held in a corrupt monopoly by the FDA, NIDA, etc. The same FDA that Monsanto had employees working for, FDA employees who passed specific GMOs monsanto created and allowed these to the market. (its called "the revolving door" illegal much?)Drug companies are lobbying out there as well, they put money in congressman's pockets, they attempt to control and sway laws in their favor.

My point is that the natural=safe/unnatural=bad dichotomy that you keep trying to shoehorn these GM crops into is completely specious. As mentioned before, the grains we eat are not natural (having been domesticated very recently in the historical past), the genes that produce these proteins you're terrified of already occur in nature (and in crops that we already ate), and (as you yourself are arguing above) this whole idea of "natural" being safe is pseudoscientific and ill-defined.

You have utterly failed to show that these proteins actually do the general population any harm - and all it would take to show that all these supposedly devastating effects on the cellular level actually matter is one little statistic saying that people actually report being sick. Not endless anecdotes about people posting their self-diagnosed problems on the internet, snake-oil doctors writing books, or supposed increases in infant diagnoses - actual, quantified rates. Why has it taken you eight pages to not do this despite repeated requests?

well it's a good thing you're not opposed to gmos being forced into our food supply since you are one of the experiment groups. good for europe in general for taking on the role of control in this experiment.

They aren't snake-oil doctors sonmadrukpa, they apply no such magical substance to perform miracles, they sell nothing in fact... Since you've already judged the guy before ever reading his book or his works, or hearing from his patients, here is a very short video of him, just for you.

Dr. William Davis, the one who wrote "wheat belly"...He's a renowned cardiologist, hes been observing and documenting what his patients and other colleagues in the profession's patients are saying before and after they have wheat in their diet, the same wheat that Monsanto drug company has modified with engineered gluten peptides, the very same being studied now, this has been thoroughly explained now.

& sonmadrukpa, As for no relevant links to prove this....The journal of translational medicine and other related GM scientific studies on the negative effects of Monsanto's engineered gluten proteins on animal and humans with links have been posted multiple times now, it doesn't get anymore scientific than that... & I'm honestly not gonna past another link for you sonmadrukpa, until you finish reading whats been posted, and catch up with the rest of the class.

sonmadrukpa said: "How have you managed to hold the thread on such an irrelevant single point for so long?"

My family and millions of others are reaching out for answers and trying to help others with up to date facts and information about this plague Monsanto has now brought upon the world.

then sonmadrukpa, If its irrelevant, why bother coming back? quit spammin post whore, I will no longer be wasting my energy spoon feeding you or replying to your posts because you seem like an inconsiderate, argumentative, smug, asshole of a and i really mean that, it's coming from the

France, unlike the US has safeguards in place and is progressive when it comes to food.

I guess you missed this post?

Excellent link HerbBaker,

& for anyone else who's not a

Its really worth a read, to fully understand the gravity of the situation we've landed ourselves in.

By Frédérique BaudouinCRIIGEN

Insecticidal Bt toxins such as those produced in genetically engineered plants can be detrimental to human cells. This is a result of recent research led by researchers at the University of Caen (France).

Their experiments showed that toxins produced in, for example, the genetically engineered maize MON810, can significantly impact the viability of human cells. The effects were observed with relatively high concentrations of the toxins, nevertheless there is cause for concern.

According to companies like Monsanto, which produces genetically engineered maize with these toxins, the toxins are supposed to be active only against particular insects and should have no effect on mammals and humans at all.

For the first time, experiments have now shown that they can have an effect on human cells. These kinds of investigations are not a requirement for risk assessment in Europe or in any other region.

Another finding of the researchers concerns a herbicide formulation sold under the brand name Roundup. Massive amounts of this herbicide are sprayed on genetically engineered soybean crops and its residues can be found in food and feed.

According to the new publication, even extremely low dosages of Roundup (glyphosate formulations) can damage human cells. These findings are in accordance with several other investigations highlighting unexpected health risks associated with glyphosate preparations.

“We were very much surprised by our findings. Until now, it has been thought almost impossible for Bt proteins to be toxic to human cells. Now further investigations have to be conducted to find out how these toxins impact the cells and if combinatorial effects with other compounds in the food and feed chain have to be taken into account,” says Gilles-Eric Séralini from the University of Caen, who supervised the experiments. “In conclusion, these experiments show that the risks of Bt toxins and of Roundup have been underestimated.”

Bt toxins and tolerance to herbicides are broadly used in genetically engineered plants. Bt proteins only naturally occur in soil bacteria. By introducing the modified toxin gene into the plants, the structure of the toxins is modified and may thereby cause selectivity to be changed. The content of the proteins within the plants is highly variable.

Many genetically engineered plants contain several Bt toxins at the same time. For example, SmartStax produces six different Bt toxins and therefore has a higher overall content of the proteins. In addition, it was made tolerant to herbicides.

So far, there has been no investigation of the combinatorial effects of these toxins and residues from spraying, or their potential risks for human health, which was considered unlikely. The researchers have now shown that interactivity does occur. Under the specific conditions of their experiment, the modified Bt toxin lowered the toxicity of Roundup.

Further investigations are necessary to examine other potential combinatorial effects under varying conditions.

“These results are pretty worrying. Risk assessment requirements for genetically engineered plants and pesticides need to be rigidly enforced. In the light of these findings, we think that the commercialization of these plants is not in accordance with EU regulations”, says Christoph Then at Testbiotech.

Testbiotech is closely following risk assessment at the European Food Safety Authority EFSA and has repeatedly brought attention to gaps in risk assessment.

The research was supported by GEKKO foundation (Germany). The Committee for Research and Independent Investigation on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) Association (France) and Testbiotech (Germany) were involved in planning the experiments and the discussion of results. Findings were published after peer review process.

Information on Genetically Modified (GM) foods including a list of GM foods with DNA changes and the pros and cons of GM food today.

GM Foods

Genetic modification of food is not new.

For centuries, food crops and animals have been altered through selective breeding. While genes can be transferred during selective breeding, the scope for exchanging genetic material is much wider using genetic engineering. In theory, genetic engineering allows genetic material to be transferred between any organism, including between plants and animals. For example, the gene from a fish that lives in very cold seas has been inserted into a strawberry, allowing the fruit to be frost-tolerant.

By far the most common genetically modified (GM) organisms are crop plants. But the technology has now been applied to almost all forms of life, from pets that glow under UV light to bacteria which form HIV blocking "living condoms" and from pigs bearing spinach genes to goats that produce spider silk.

When did genetically modified foods originate?

Between 1997 and 1999, gene-modified (GM) ingredients suddenly appeared in 2/3rds of all US processed foods. This food alteration was fueled by a single Supreme Court ruling. It allowed, for the first time, the patenting of life forms for commercialization. Since then thousands of applications for experimental GM organisms have been filed with the US Patent Office alone, and many more abroad.

The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was the tomato (called Flavr Savr), which was made more resistant to rotting by Californian company Calgene. The tomatoes were released into the market in 1994 without any special labeling.

In February 1996, J. Sainsbury and Safeway Stores in the United Kingdom introduced Europe's first genetically-modified food product. A variant of the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996. Following GM crops included insect resistant cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybeans both of which were commercially available in 1996.

In 2003, countries that grew 99 % of the global transgenic crops were the United States (63 %), Argentina (21 %), Canada (6 %), Brazil (4 %), China (4 %), and South Africa (1 %) and today the Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75 % of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient.

Between 1995 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km² (222 million acres), of which 55 percent were in Brazil.

In the US, by 2006 89 % of the planted area of soybeans, 83 % of cotton, and 61 % maize were genetically modified varieties.

Today many Gmod crops are grown in North America. India has also come aboard the bandwagon in 2002 with a rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties.

"Genetic engineering is inherently dangerous, because it greatly expands the scope for horizontal gene transfer and recombination, precisely the processes that create new viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics, and trigger cancer in cells." - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Genetically Modified Food Debates

Genetically modified foods, or GM foods, are often mentioned in the news lately. European environmental organizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GM foods since they were first created, and recent controversial studies about the effects of genetically modified corn pollen on monarch butterfly caterpillars have brought the issues of genetic engineering plants and animals to the attention of the public.

The benefits of genetically modified food crops include being able to breed disease resistant crops and herbicide tolerant strains. Genetically modified crops can also be made to include vitamins that may be lacking in some staple varieties.

According to the UK Greenpeace website - The introduction of genetically modified (GM) food and crops has been a disaster. The science of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another was supposed to be a giant leap forward, but instead they pose a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health. In addition, the real reason for their development has not been to end world hunger but to increase the stranglehold multinational biotech companies already have on food production. And - The simple truth is, we don't need GM technology in order to possess future food security. Using sustainable and organic farming methods will allow us to repair the damage done by industrial farming, reducing the excessive use of fertiliser, herbicides and other man-made chemicals, and making GM crops redundant.

Many scientists argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production, so people should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk.

Activists are opposed to genetic engineering as with current recombinant technology there is no way to ensure that genetically modified organisms will remain under control, plus the use of this technology outside secure laboratory environments represents multiple unacceptable risks to both farmed and wild ecosystems.

In 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so allergic to this nut, they go into anaphylactic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death.

Many opponents of current genetic engineering realize that the increasing use of GM in crops has caused a power shift in agriculture towards Biotechnology companies, which are gaining more control over the production chain of crops and food, and over the farmers that use their products, as well.

In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically altered version of the food supplement – L-tryptophan. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by Showa Denko, Japan’s third largest chemical company. (Mayeno and Gleich, 1994).

On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly due to accidental cross-pollination with conventional crops.

In 1998, 95-98 percent of about 10 km² planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from the Monsanto company. Monsanto then sued Schmeiser for piracy. In the past few years more and more crops have started to cross-pollinate which leaves a problem that is yet to be solved.

In 2005 Environmentalists say Australia faced "the most serious genetic contamination event" in its history, after the West Australian government confirmed low levels of genetically modified canola had been found in non-GM canola. Also in 2005 a decade-long project to develop genetically modified peas with built-in pest-resistance has been abandoned after tests showed they caused allergic lung damage in mice.

"They're now turning those seeds into intellectual property, so they have a virtual lock on the seeds upon which we all depend for our food and survival." - Jeremy Rifkin

Genetically Modified Food Labels

In America, there’s no need for labeling and this has resulted in a largely uninformed populace that is ingesting “gene-altered” food.

In other parts of the world such as the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and Australia consumers demand labelling so they can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins. Since its implementation in April 2004, EU Regulation 1829/2003 (labeling of genetically modified food and feed) has caused both food and feed manufacturers in Europe as well as their overseas suppliers a great deal of concern.

All genetically modified foods intended for sale in Australia and New Zealand must undergo a safety evaluation by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), an independent government agency. FSANZ will not approve a GM food unless it is safe to eat. It is mandatory for GM foods to be identified on food labels in Australia and New Zealand. These requirements became law in December 2001 and were put in place by food ministers to assist consumers to purchase or avoid GM foods, depending on their own views and beliefs.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture says the industry faces huge losses if mandatory labelling is implemented. The fear is that consumers will see the labels as a warning and avoid these foods, and that food processors will reformulate their products to avoid GM foods rather than place labels. It also says labels will increase the price of foods produced and processed in Canada.

"The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction." Richard Lacey: Professor of Food Safety, Leeds University.

List of genetically modified foods:

It’s virtually impossible to provide a complete list of genetically modified food (GM food) in the United States because there aren’t any laws for genetically modified crops!

Some estimates say as many as 30,000 different products on grocery store shelves are "modified." That's largely because many processed foods contain soy. Half of North America's soy crop is genetically engineered!

Rapeseed - Resistance to certain pesticides and improved rapeseed cultivars to be free of erucic acid and glucosinolates. Gluconsinolates, which were found in rapeseed meal leftover from pressing, are toxic and had prevented the use of the meal in animal feed. In Canada, where "double-zero" rapeseed was developed, the crop was renamed "canola" (Canadian oil) to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed.

Honey - Honey can be produced from GM crops. Some Canadian honey comes from bees collecting nectar from GM canola plants. This has shut down exports of Canadian honey to Europe.

Cotton - Resistant to certain pesticides - considered a food because the oil can be consumed. The introduction of genetically engineered cotton plants has had an unexpectedly effect on Chinese agriculture. The so-called Bt cotton plants that produce a chemical that kills the cotton bollworm have not only reduced the incidence of the pest in cotton fields, but also in neighboring fields of corn, soybeans, and other crops.

Rice - Genetically modified to contain high amounts of Vitamin A. Rice containing human genes is to be grown in the US. Rather than end up on dinner plates, the rice will make human proteins useful for treating infant diarrhoea in the developing world.

Sugar cane - Made resistant to certain pesticides. A large percentage of sweeteners used in processed food actually comes from corn, not sugar cane or beets. Genetically modified sugar cane is regarded so badly by consumers at the present time that it could not be marketed successfully.

Tomatoes - Made for a longer shelf life and to prevent a substance that causes tomatoes to rot and degrade.

Sweet corn - genetically modified to produces its own insecticide. Officials from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have said that thousands of tonnes of genetically engineered sweetcorn have made their way into the human food supply chain, even though the produce has been approved only for use in animal feed. Recently Monsanto, a biotechnology food producer, said that about half of the USA's sweetcorn acreage has been planted with genetically modified seed this year.

Flax - More and more food products contain flax oil and seed because of their excellent nutritional properties. No genetically modified flax is currently grown. An herbicide-resistant GM flax was introduced in 2001, but was soon taken off the market because European importers refused to buy it.

Papaya - The first virus resistant papayas were commercially grown in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas now cover about one thousand hectares, or three quarters of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto, donated technology to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, for developing a papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.

Squash - (yellow crookneck) - Some zucchini and yellow crookneck squash are also GM but they are not popular with farmers.

Red-hearted chicory - (radicchio) - Chicory (Cichorium intybus var. foliosum) is popular in some regions as a salad green, especially in France and Belgium. Scientists developed a genetically modified line of chicory containing a gene that makes it male sterile, simply facilitating the production of hybrid cultivars. Today there is no genetically modified chicory on the market.

Tobacco -The company Vector has a GMO tobacco being sold under the brand of Quest® cigarettes in the U.S. It is engineered to produce low or no nicotine.

Meat - Meat and dairy products usually come from animals that have eaten GM feed.

Peas - Genetically modified (GM) peas created immune responses in mice, suggesting that they may also create serious allergic reactions in people. The peas had been inserted with a gene from kidney beans, which creates a protein that acts as a pesticide.

Vegetable Oil - Most generic vegetable oils and margarines used in restaurants and in processed foods in North America are made from soy, corn, canola, or cottonseed. Unless these oils specifically say "Non-GMO" or "Organic," it is probably genetically modified.

Sugarbeets - May include any processed foods containing sugar.

Dairy Products - About 22 percent of cows in the U.S. are injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH).

Vitamins - Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is often made from corn, vitamin E is usually made from soy. Vitamins A, B2, B6, and B12 may be derived from GMOs as well as vitamin D and vitamin K may have "carriers" derived from GM corn sources, such as starch, glucose, and maltodextrin.

How can the public make informed decisions about genetically modified (GM) foods when there is so little information about its safety?

According to the FDA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization.

Future planned applications of GMOs are diverse and may include drugs in foods, for example, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.

"History has many records of crimes against humanity, which were also justified by dominant commercial interests and governments of the day. Despite protests from citizens, social justice for the common good was eroded in favour of private profits. Today, patenting of life forms and the genetic engineering which it stimulates, is being justified on the grounds that it will benefit society, especially the poor, by providing better and more food and medicine. But in fact, by monopolising the 'raw' biological materials, the development of other options is deliberately blocked. Farmers therefore, become totally dependent on the corporations for seeds." - Professor Wangari Mathai.

One miserable statistic, I don't understand why you can't produce that

Look, I'll make it real simple: Your argument is incomplete.

Let me give you an example to sort of make this clearer: iodine is a poisonous element - it kills your cells, it kills you. Yet we are just fine eating iodine in trace amounts in our food. These days it's put into our salt, which means that it's in nearly everything we eat. Yet people aren't dying from it. Why? Because in small amounts, it's not poisonous. In fact, it's necessary for your body to function properly. In the same way, just pointing out that there are these things in some GM foods that can do some bad things to your cells sometimes and have other bad effects doesn't mean anything if you can't show those small-scale effects having any effects on a macro level.

In order to complete your argument, you need some sort of scientific study that shows that these things are having a bad impact on the 99% of us that aren't celiac. If you can't do that, then you don't have an argument.

Quote:Dr. William Davis, the one who wrote "wheat belly"...He's a renowned cardiologist, hes been observing and documenting what his patients and other colleagues in the profession's patients are saying before and after they have wheat in their diet, the same wheat that Monsanto drug company has modified with engineered gluten peptides, the very same being studied now, this has been thoroughly explained now.

Renowned by whom?

He's selling a book based on a diagnosis that he's assuming people have without even examining them. How is that not being a snake-oil salesman? Unless he has done double-blind studies on the effects of wheat in people's diets, then his book is not worth the paper it's printed on.

France, unlike the US has safeguards in place and is progressive when it comes to food.

I guess you missed this post?

Was this in response to me? If so, I'm not sure how that shows harm to the general population, for the reasons in my post above. This thread is full of things like that, but I just don't think they show anything worrisome without additional argumentation.

France, unlike the US has safeguards in place and is progressive when it comes to food.

I guess you missed this post?

Excellent link HerbBaker,

& for anyone else who's not a

Its really worth a read, to fully understand the gravity of the situation we've landed ourselves in.

By Frédérique BaudouinCRIIGEN

Insecticidal Bt toxins such as those produced in genetically engineered plants can be detrimental to human cells. This is a result of recent research led by researchers at the University of Caen (France).

Their experiments showed that toxins produced in, for example, the genetically engineered maize MON810, can significantly impact the viability of human cells. The effects were observed with relatively high concentrations of the toxins, nevertheless there is cause for concern.

According to companies like Monsanto, which produces genetically engineered maize with these toxins, the toxins are supposed to be active only against particular insects and should have no effect on mammals and humans at all.

For the first time, experiments have now shown that they can have an effect on human cells. These kinds of investigations are not a requirement for risk assessment in Europe or in any other region.

Another finding of the researchers concerns a herbicide formulation sold under the brand name Roundup. Massive amounts of this herbicide are sprayed on genetically engineered soybean crops and its residues can be found in food and feed.

According to the new publication, even extremely low dosages of Roundup (glyphosate formulations) can damage human cells. These findings are in accordance with several other investigations highlighting unexpected health risks associated with glyphosate preparations.

“We were very much surprised by our findings. Until now, it has been thought almost impossible for Bt proteins to be toxic to human cells. Now further investigations have to be conducted to find out how these toxins impact the cells and if combinatorial effects with other compounds in the food and feed chain have to be taken into account,” says Gilles-Eric Séralini from the University of Caen, who supervised the experiments. “In conclusion, these experiments show that the risks of Bt toxins and of Roundup have been underestimated.”

Bt toxins and tolerance to herbicides are broadly used in genetically engineered plants. Bt proteins only naturally occur in soil bacteria. By introducing the modified toxin gene into the plants, the structure of the toxins is modified and may thereby cause selectivity to be changed. The content of the proteins within the plants is highly variable.

Many genetically engineered plants contain several Bt toxins at the same time. For example, SmartStax produces six different Bt toxins and therefore has a higher overall content of the proteins. In addition, it was made tolerant to herbicides.

So far, there has been no investigation of the combinatorial effects of these toxins and residues from spraying, or their potential risks for human health, which was considered unlikely. The researchers have now shown that interactivity does occur. Under the specific conditions of their experiment, the modified Bt toxin lowered the toxicity of Roundup.

Further investigations are necessary to examine other potential combinatorial effects under varying conditions.

“These results are pretty worrying. Risk assessment requirements for genetically engineered plants and pesticides need to be rigidly enforced. In the light of these findings, we think that the commercialization of these plants is not in accordance with EU regulations”, says Christoph Then at Testbiotech.

Testbiotech is closely following risk assessment at the European Food Safety Authority EFSA and has repeatedly brought attention to gaps in risk assessment.

The research was supported by GEKKO foundation (Germany). The Committee for Research and Independent Investigation on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) Association (France) and Testbiotech (Germany) were involved in planning the experiments and the discussion of results. Findings were published after peer review process.

--------------------Icelander said: I'd like to fund unlimited abortions. Finally some good coming from my tax dollars.

Repetoire89 said: I love abortion and fully condone it - some should make it into a sport.

Treesniper119 said: Any one who is willing to start life & also willing to deny life to their form/seed/child/offspring is cursed.
For you have severed your own cord to lifes worth.
Anyone who condones these actions is cursed as well...